Argumentation Systems
Nov. 4th, 2004 06:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslThis Monday on the train I saw a colleague of mine, Gustaaf Haan, who, as I found out, has a degree in Argumentation Theory and gives lessons to lawyers. Since then I've been trying to sell him some of my reductionistic ideas, such as:
* we can in principle formalize all forms of argument: Leibniz's Calculemus
* most disagreements are irrational, you can't agree to disagree, etc.
I imagine that this area of "Argumentation Systems" encompasses widely different projects, from "using XML to parse the logical structure of an argument in a text; or for annotating responses and criticisms" to "game-theoretical semantics's of argumentation logics".
Some relevant links:
On argumentation games:
Johan van Benthem - Argument and Procedure (an interesting project would be interrogation strategies to catch a liar, by making it computationally hard for him to improvise a consistent story) and Johan van Benthem - What Logic Games are Trying to Tell us
Wikipedia - Logic & Games in general
IT solutions to Rhetoric :-) (i.e. systems to help resolve arguments more objectively):
Gordon, Karacapilidis - The Zeno Argumentation Framework
Gerard Vreeswijk - Abstract Argumentation Systems
this one has "defeasible proofs"
I also remember reading something by John McCarthy along these lines.
I'll see if I can do my Dialogue Systems project on argumentation systems. These ideas are close and dear to me.
* we can in principle formalize all forms of argument: Leibniz's Calculemus
* most disagreements are irrational, you can't agree to disagree, etc.
I imagine that this area of "Argumentation Systems" encompasses widely different projects, from "using XML to parse the logical structure of an argument in a text; or for annotating responses and criticisms" to "game-theoretical semantics's of argumentation logics".
Some relevant links:
On argumentation games:
Johan van Benthem - Argument and Procedure (an interesting project would be interrogation strategies to catch a liar, by making it computationally hard for him to improvise a consistent story) and Johan van Benthem - What Logic Games are Trying to Tell us
Wikipedia - Logic & Games in general
IT solutions to Rhetoric :-) (i.e. systems to help resolve arguments more objectively):
Gordon, Karacapilidis - The Zeno Argumentation Framework
Gerard Vreeswijk - Abstract Argumentation Systems
this one has "defeasible proofs"
I also remember reading something by John McCarthy along these lines.
I'll see if I can do my Dialogue Systems project on argumentation systems. These ideas are close and dear to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-05 05:31 am (UTC)